Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:26:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul Herman <pherman@frenchfries.net> To: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> Cc: Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdates question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007101513070.53524-100000@bagabeedaboo.security.at12.de> In-Reply-To: <20000710.13040500@bartequi.ottodomain.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Salvo Bartolotta wrote: > Essentially, I thought that avoiding these writes in conjunction with > softupdates (smart metadata management) would not do harm. > > Also, a number of posts had showed that a few people were actually > using softupdates *and* noatime. Now you guys are just being silly. Do you even notice the difference? I mean, this sort of metadata isn't handled synchronously by softupdates anyway. Softupdates is pretty smart as it is. A very intensive "find /usr/ports" lasting 2 minutes (that's 12700+ directories, nearly 100 atime updates per second with many bufdaemon wakeups during that time) showed me only a 2% time difference between atime and noatime with softupdates. Now really... ...and that isn't even realistic behaviour for a server. Tell me, where would this make a difference (and how much)? Numbers numbers numbers... -Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007101513070.53524-100000>